185 Responses

Well I don't know about you, but I just feel great to be part of the generation of humans who knowingly keep the whole planet on hold pending, um, you know, The Red Button (maybe if we all behave).Meanwhile of course, there's global warming to question.

I often wonder why the Climate Change debate is such a 'personal' issue. I don't think it's an issue of those who disagree with the science as being 'deniers', it is just that they see other major factors in their science measurements that can cause climate change; not only (oe even) mankind. They say the reasons behind cyclical change over the centuries has not been caused by man, but the activity of say, the sun. The disputes here caused by politics or left/right wing scraps haven't helped. We keep getting good debate and facts shoved aside by people who should know better eg politicians/scientists/christians etc. The science isn't settled. We all know that.

Let's not attack Garth or Jim or Augie, but do all we can to be better responsible citizens in this planet anyway.

I think this is an important point. On what grounds does someone like Garth or Leighton discard the findings of the IPCC? It is absurd that some people presume to make authoritative claims about the truth or falsity of scientific theory without a command of the science. Its absurd to invite us to try.

Yep. So you just try and apply some of the usual gauges of credibility. So it's our two major national climate science organisations, the G8 science academies, NASA, the IPCC, etc, etc versus small, shifty, largely non-expert lobby groups prone to misrepresenting their credentials and their funding sources. I mean, really ...

I've said this before, but comparisons with the GE panic are instructive. There were plenty of people on "The Left" who seized on the GE issue for political reasons, now it's the other side doing the same thing. You see the same phenomenon of circulating factoids on ropey-looking websites.

But I think the difference is that that anti-GE lobby has actually informed some decent policy choices, by raising issues like proper crop separation (we know now, for example, that we don't want GE canola here). I'm not seeing that from the CSC.

I've registered just to comment on this thread, in particular to ask what was the story behind the Natrad Insight documentary on climate sceptics last Sunday? Do you think they did it because someone was jumping up and down sceaming "balance!"

Anyway, to recycle what I posted on the frogblog thread:

What did people think of the National Radio Insight documentary on climate sceptics that played last Sunday? Apparently it was the first of three slots on cc, and the next one is going to be devoted to “What does carbon neutrality mean?” I hope the final insight gives the real climate scientists a chance to respond to some of the more egregious things that were said last weekend.

The sceptic documentary was very strange - I couldn’t work out if Sue Ingram was just going through the motions because she’d been told to and letting them say whatever they wanted and make fools of themselves, and her voiceover was ironical, or if she was sympathetic to what they were saying. At least she stuck mostly to the so-called “science” without letting more than a hint of the wilder political/conspiracy claims show through. But that “science” was the same old tired, self-referential mis-statements, half-truths and down-right lies I’ve been reading over and over and over on climate blogs for the last few months.

I veered between being irritated that they were getting a whole programme to speak without being challenged, and pleasure that lame statements like “a rise in temperature of one degree is like walking into another room” was the best they could manage. I’ve decided that deniers/sceptics don’t make a serious attempt to tackle the core issue of the physics of the impact of increased CO2 in the atmosphere, and the fact that this stuff up is the result of pouring in hundreds of thousands of fossilized sunshine into our atmosphere in increasing rates. Because those two facts are indisputable.

Instead, they attempt a “death of a thousand cuts” by poking round at every uncertainty round the edges, and pretending that that discredits the central premise. Or else they don’t even try to argue and just make outrageous statements.

I thought the point was the science is settled - G8 science acadamies, NASA, IPCC etc are 90% certain of predictions (and the cause being anthropogenic CO2). That's good enough odds for me, and like an earlier post said a lot of the actions you take to mitigate climate change save you money and make you healthier...

Let's not attack Garth or Jim or Augie, but do all we can to be better responsible citizens in this planet anyway.

I'm all for being responsible (in moderation); but if someone is wrong, and their being wrong affects others, isn't it the responsible thing to correct them?

The point surely is that, whilst the science is not quite 100% certain (and what is?), this must be weighed against the fact that, if the theory is correct, then we are 100% fucked if we don't start doing something about it, quick smart.

In a joint statement MetService Chief Executive Mr Paul Reid and NIWA's Acting Chief Executive Dr Bryce Cooper say: "The relationship issues reported in the media are not those of the current people involved. Both organisations are continuing to work together to ensure that any investments made by either organisation are maximised and coordinated for the benefit of all New Zealanders."

Yep. So you just try and apply some of the usual gauges of credibility. So it's our two major national climate science organisations, the G8 science academies, NASA, the IPCC, etc, etc versus small, shifty, largely non-expert lobby groups prone to misrepresenting their credentials and their funding sources. I mean, really ...

I agree. You don't have to be a scientist to read and undertand the basic conclusions of the IPCC policy maker's guide (which was, after all, written to be acted upon by non-scientists), or make an assessment of where the balance of scientific opinion lies.

It seems to me that you do need to be a scientist if you are going to dismiss the IPCC's conclusions as some sort of UN inspired hoax. Even if there's a 10% chance that Garth is right, there is a 100% chance that he is talking out of his... um, hat.

Arrived back in Australia this morning after a visit to farming parents and extended family in NZ. Few heated discussions about this topic during that time. Received a gleeful call this afternoon that the Herald has a fantastic article about global warming today - just proving their case that it is all nonsense!

Our discussions in NZ were more about Kyoto and why NZ is the ONLY country that records the cow fart methane and are then duly taxed immensely for our emissions. Is this true? The financial effect of the kyoto taxes were what they seemed were most upset about - that the farmers in NZ are the ones taking the blame. So they will deny it till the end regardless. Inflamed by the numbers of 4 wheel drives on the road AND travelling the country for weekends away AND flying all over the world for fun - all of which makes a few cow farts quite negligible!

Personally I don't actually care whether global warming is human induced or cyclical or solar induced or whatever. We are currently trashing our planet and anything that makes people and industry change to a more earth friendly existence is all good by me!

"The drafting of reports by the world's pre-eminent group of climate scientists is an odd process. For months scientists contributing to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tussle over the evidence. Nothing gets published unless it achieves consensus. This means that the panel's reports are conservative - even timid. It also means that they are as trustworthy as a scientific document can be.

Then, when all is settled among the scientists, the politicians sweep in and seek to excise from the summaries anything that threatens their interests."

His point:

"This is the opposite of the story endlessly repeated in the rightwing press: that the IPCC, in collusion with governments, is conspiring to exaggerate the science. No one explains why governments should seek to amplify their own failures. In the wacky world of the climate conspiracists no explanations are required. The world's most conservative scientific body has somehow been transformed into a conspiracy of screaming demagogues."

I have been surfing in the sea for 30+ years, all over the world (mea culpa). I watch the weather like most people watch their bank. I can state unequivicably that Niwa and MetService are world class, work together and provide exceptional marine data, including swell forecasting data. Their websites rock and I literally plan my life around them.

I Like Rain, great single. After The Rain, pretty good single. We love the rain because that's where our water for home comes from. It's pretty neat when it rains when you're surfing, until the lightening comes (yes some have died) and the fins...surfing means you are in the elements literally, so we like weather good forecasters.Factoid, swell forecasting was developed by the US Coastguard during WW2 in the Pacific due to serious failures landing LPV's on reef fringed islands on seemingly fine, clear and otherwise mild weather days...imagine 20 foot, long period wave sets grinding you into some remote reef while being fired upon.

The only climate change deniers are those who do believe all the catastrophe AND still drive in cars or fly in planes.

And if all the science is so great why has the Australian National Tidal Data centre at Flinders University handed their data over to the Bureau of Metrology who now hide ( the lack of any real sea level rise around Australia) the data behind password protection and approved researchers.Same with the Hadley centre in England who give the Annual ( in Nov) World Average temperature. Try and check what is warming and what is cooling and you are out luck.Of Course Hadley had to rename themselves the 'near surface' temperature centre since the 70% of the planet that is ocean has the water temperature measured not the air temperature.Naturally the Antarctic getting colder is ignored , since they measure the stratosphere when it suits them. Or the Antarctic peninsular ( 5% of the land mass).

Had to laugh at the NIWA 'prediction' of the glaciers receding in Westland, while the Franz is currently advancing ! ( no mention that the glacial maximum was reached in about 1830 which was the end of the Little Ice Age)Of course any place getting colder is allways due to other 'other' factors.

The Herald's Your Views section astonished me when I read it yesterday. Living and working in Geneva, I could not imagine the same mix of comments coming from a European audience. The debate is so hot here (excuse the pun), and particularly in the UK, that the problem is taken as almost given - save a few exceptions such as the Channel 4 'documentary'. That said, as I am involved on the periphery of the climate change issue with my job, it was interesting to see how the debate is being shaped on the other side of the world. Although we are an international organisation, I can't help but think that our perceptions of public sentiment are tainted slightly by where we live.

Would the Herald's respondants be typical of New Zealander's current thinking, or is this just the people with too much time of their hands?